header-logo header-logo

22 March 2017
Issue: 7739 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

Limits of the Great Repeal Bill

The current reciprocal rules for enforcing civil justice across the EU cannot be replicated by the Great Repeal Bill, a committee of Peers has found.

In a report published this week, Brexit: justice for families, individuals and businesses?, the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee gave a dire warning about access to justice across the EU for families and businesses post-Brexit. 

The committee found that the current system for civil justice cooperation across the EU member states works well, with both family and commercial disputes that cross borders currently settled by judgments that are enforceable across the EU. However, Brexit will usher in several changes.

The committee found that, unless the current system of “mutual recognition” of judgments across the EU is duplicated, not only will the advantages be lost, but there will be real hardship for families and businesses, who could be left subject to national rules across 27 other member states.

It argued that alternatives to the existing framework of civil justice cooperation must be in place before the UK withdraws from the EU. Falling back on common law and earlier international agreements would condemn UK citizens to uncertainty and diminished access to justice, it said.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, the committee’s chair, said: “Unless the government can agree a replacement of the existing rules on mutual recognition of judgments, there will be great uncertainty over access to justice for families, businesses and individuals.

“The committee heard clear and conclusive evidence that there is no means by which the reciprocal rules currently in place can be replicated in the Great Repeal Bill. Domestic legislation can’t bind the other 27 member states.

“We therefore call on the government to secure adequate alternative arrangements, whether as part of a withdrawal agreement or a transitional deal.”

Issue: 7739 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll